sriramkalyan
08-22 10:38 AM
Hi,
Did any one graduate from Stevens Institute of Technology ?
I plan to do TM from this ...My company pays for tuition..
i havent seen any good ranking for this institute.
Also any info on Tiffin University in Ohio ...
Thanks
Did any one graduate from Stevens Institute of Technology ?
I plan to do TM from this ...My company pays for tuition..
i havent seen any good ranking for this institute.
Also any info on Tiffin University in Ohio ...
Thanks
wallpaper tattoos of love quotes.
raj2007
02-18 01:45 AM
All, Help me understand this.
If I look at this link below on # of immigrant visa's approved every year for for each country it shows the total for India (all category EB 1-5) as
06 -10.7k
05 -46K
04 - 39k
03 - 20k
02 - 41k
01 - 41k
Am I reading this right because this certainly is more than the country limit. Also the total # of visa's given seem to be more than the annual limit. I thought there were some 250k visas that were lost, were the limits higher during these years?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Under each link look for - Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State Chargeability or Area of Birth): Fiscal Year 2006 (preliminary data)
The captured visa were available for all the categories regardless of country of birth. Therefore no country limit was there.
If I look at this link below on # of immigrant visa's approved every year for for each country it shows the total for India (all category EB 1-5) as
06 -10.7k
05 -46K
04 - 39k
03 - 20k
02 - 41k
01 - 41k
Am I reading this right because this certainly is more than the country limit. Also the total # of visa's given seem to be more than the annual limit. I thought there were some 250k visas that were lost, were the limits higher during these years?
http://travel.state.gov/visa/frvi/statistics/statistics_1476.html
Under each link look for - Immigrant Visas Issued (by Foreign State Chargeability or Area of Birth): Fiscal Year 2006 (preliminary data)
The captured visa were available for all the categories regardless of country of birth. Therefore no country limit was there.
BMS1
11-05 08:32 AM
Hopefully, you guys and other new H1-B guys coming to US and yet to file for green card, get frustrated enough about getting locked to an employer and inability of the spouse to get employed and join IV in large enough numbers to bring the "Ability-to-file-I485-during-retrogression" to the top priority where it once was.
2011 pics of love quotes. funny
VenuK
07-10 07:35 PM
Hi SDDesi,
That's a good point. i will talk to my attorney and senior attorney from other resources.
Thanks,
Hi raysaikat,
I talked to my attorney about the security clearance and he said my security clearance is done successfully. basically, FBI will do all that behind the scenes thats what my attorney said, they back check in bio-data since i came into US,
then
only i have received approved I-797 with company Y on Jun 5, 2008.
addition to it, i have a letter (from my attorney) from an expert opinion who is the Professor from University of Maryland on my Education and Work Experience. correct me if this is wrong.
coming to second point
i dont think my current client will give me that kinda luxury working from remote place,
what is TAL?
what information is provided there.
what do i need to look for in there.
do u have any link where i can look into it, if so pls email me at
kvenu135 at hotmail dot com
please email me anyone who reads this thread/post with your advices.
I would be more than happy to appreciate it
With Thanks,
Venu
That's a good point. i will talk to my attorney and senior attorney from other resources.
Thanks,
Hi raysaikat,
I talked to my attorney about the security clearance and he said my security clearance is done successfully. basically, FBI will do all that behind the scenes thats what my attorney said, they back check in bio-data since i came into US,
then
only i have received approved I-797 with company Y on Jun 5, 2008.
addition to it, i have a letter (from my attorney) from an expert opinion who is the Professor from University of Maryland on my Education and Work Experience. correct me if this is wrong.
coming to second point
i dont think my current client will give me that kinda luxury working from remote place,
what is TAL?
what information is provided there.
what do i need to look for in there.
do u have any link where i can look into it, if so pls email me at
kvenu135 at hotmail dot com
please email me anyone who reads this thread/post with your advices.
I would be more than happy to appreciate it
With Thanks,
Venu
more...
go_guy123
08-24 04:52 PM
ILW.COM - immigration news: Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. <em>USCIS</em> Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability (http://www.ilw.com/articles/2009,0825-mehta.shtm)
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
Ninth Circuit In Herrera v. USCIS Rules That Revocation Of I-140 Petition Trumps Portability
by Cyrus D. Mehta
As the Employment-based categories remain hopeless backlogged,1 especially for those born in India and China in the Employment-based Second Preference (EB-2) and for the entire world in the Employment-Based Third Preference (EB-3),2 the only silver lining is the ability of the applicant to exercise portability under INA � 204(j).
Under INA � 204(j), an I-140 petition3 remains valid even if the alien has changed employers or jobs so long as an application for adjustment of status has been filed and remains unadjudicated for 180 days or more and that the applicant has changed jobs or employers in the same or similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed.
Stated simply, an applicant for adjustment of status (Form I-485) can move to a new employer or change positions with the same employer who filed the I-140 petition as long as the new position is in a same or similar occupation as the original position.4 This individual who has changed jobs can still continue to enjoy the benefits of the I-485 application and the ability to obtain permanent residency. � 204(j), thus, allows one not to be imprisoned with an employer or in one position if an adjustment application is pending for more than 180 days. A delay of more than 180 days may be caused either due to inefficiency with United States Immigration and Citizenship Services (�USCIS�), or more recently, due the retrogression in visa numbers in the EB-2 and EB-3 categories.
A recent decision from the Ninth Circuit, Herrera v. USCIS, No. 08-55493, 2009 WL 1911596 (C.A. 9 (Cal.)), 2009 U.S. App. LEXIS 14592,5 unfortunately, may render adjustment applicants who have exercised portability under INA � 204(j) more vulnerable.
In Herrera v. USCIS, the petitioner in this case, Herrera, was the beneficiary of an approved I-140 petition, which was filed under INA � 203(b)(1)(C) as an alien who seeks to work for a company �in the capacity that is managerial or executive.�6 At Herrera�s adjustment of status interview, the examining officer discovered that she was not truly employed in a managerial or executive capacity for the petitioning employer. The employer who filed the I-140 petition, Jugendstil, did not manufacture furniture, as it stated in the I-140 petition, but rather, engaged in interior designing services. Following the adjustment interview, and long after the adjustment application was pending for more than 180 days, Herrera exercised portability to a new employer. Unfortunately, a few months after she had exercised portability, the California Service Center (�CSC�) issued a notice of intent to revoke Herrera�s previously approved I-140 petition. This notice, which was sent to the prior employer that filed the I-140 petition, alleged that Herrera did not work in a managerial or executive capacity due to the size of the petitioning entity ( which had only 7 employees) and also because of her lack of managerial or executive job duties, which included visits to client sites. The CSC ultimately revoked the I-140 petition after giving Jugendstil an opportunity to respond. This indeed is anomalous, since the original I-140 petitioner, after the alien has exercised portability, may not have an incentive to respond. However, in this case, Jugendstil did appear to have an incentive to respond (and litigate the matter) as Herrera had �ported� to Bay Area Bumpers, an affiliate of Jugendstil. The Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) affirmed the denial, and so did the federal district court.
At issue in Herrera v. USCIS was whether the government�s authority to revoke an I-140 petition under INA � 205 survived portability under INA � 204(j). INA � 205 states, �The Secretary of Homeland Security may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 204. Such revocation shall be effective as of the date of approval of any such petition.�
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the government that it continued to have the power to revoke a petition under INA � 205 even though the alien may have successfully exercised portability under INA � 204(j). The Ninth Circuit reasoned that in order to �remain valid� under INA � 204(j), the I-140 petition must have been valid from the start. If a petition should never have been approved, the petitioner was not and had never been valid. The Ninth Circuit also cited with approval an AAO decision, which previously held in 2005 that a petition that is deniable, or not approvable, will not be considered valid for purposes under INA � 204(j).7 Finally, the Ninth Circuit reasoned that if Herrera�s argument prevailed, it would have unintended practical consequences, which Congress never intended. For instance, an alien who exercised portability, such as Herrera, would be immune to revocation, but an alien who remained with the petitioning employer would not be able to be so immune. If the opposite were true, according to the Ninth Circuit, an applicant would have a huge incentive to change jobs in order to escape the revocation of an I-140 petition. Finally, the Ninth Circuit also examined the merits of the revocation, and held that the AAO�s decision was supported by substantial evidence.8
Based on the holding in Herrera v. USCIS, adjustment applicants who have exercised portability better beware in the event that the USCIS later decides to revoke your I-140 petition. 8 CFR � 205.2 (a), which implements INA � 205, gives authority to any Service officer to revoke a petition �when the necessity of revocation comes to the attention of the Service.� Also, under 8 CFR � 205.2(b), the Service needs to only give notice to the petitioner of the revocation and an opportunity to rebut. An adjustment applicant who has exercised portability may not be so fortunate to have a petitioner who may be interested in responding to the notice of revocation, leave alone informing this individual who may no longer be within his or her prior employer�s orbit.
Finally, of most concern, is whether every revocation dooms the adjustment applicant who has �ported� under INA � 204(j). Not all revocations are caused by the fact that the petition may have not been valid from the very outset. For instance, under the automatic revocation provisions in 8 CFR � 205.1(a)(3)(iii), an I-140 petition may be automatically revoked �[u]pon written notice of withdrawal filed by the petitioner, in employment-based preference cases, with any officer of the Service who is authorized to grant or deny petitions.� An employer may routinely, out of abundant caution, decide to inform the USCIS if its employee leaves, even though he or she may legitimately assert portability as a pending adjustment applicant. Such a revocation of the I-140 ought to be distinguished from Herrera v. USCIS as the I-140 was valid from its inception but for the fact that the employer initiated the withdrawal. Similarly, another ground for automatic termination is upon the termination of the employer�s business.9 It would not make sense to deny someone portability if the petitioning entity, which previously sponsored him or her, went out of business, but was viable at the time it had sponsored the alien. Indeed, one Q&A in the Aytes Memo, supra, at least addresses the issue of an employer�s withdrawal:10
�Question 11. When is an I-140 no longer valid for porting purposes?�
Answer: An I-140 petition is no longer valid for porting purposes when:
1. an I-140 is withdrawn before the alien�s I-485 has been pending 180 days, or
2. an I-140 is denied or revoked at any time except when it is revoked based on a withdrawal that was submitted after an I-485 has been pending for 180 days.�
It is hoped that Herrera v. USCIS, a classic instance of bad facts making bad law, does not affect those whose petitions have been revoked after the original employer submitted a withdrawal after an I-485 application was pending for more than 180 days. The Aytes Memo makes clear that this should not be the case. Less clear is whether a revocation caused by the termination of the employer�s business should have an impact on an adjustment applicant�s ability to exercise portability.11 The Aytes Memo seems to suggest that such a person who has exercised portability may be jeopardized if the I-140 petition is revoked. It is one thing to deny portability to someone whose I-140 petition was never valid, although hopefully the individual who has ported ought to be given the ability to challenge the revocation in addition to the original petitioner.12 On the other hand, there is absolutely no justification to deny portability when revocation of an I-140 petition occurs upon the business terminating, after it had been viable when the I-140 was filed and approved, or when the employer submits a notice of withdrawal of the I-140 petition after the I-485 has been pending for more than 180 days.
pappu
04-24 11:14 AM
OK why dont we have that link that shows about bills anymore?? I mean on the home page...was that intentionally removed?
We removed the link and the thread. Announcing the bills in advance did not have its desired effect and motivation in members to help themselves by supporting it.
We saw members discussing the issue to its death and shooting themselves in the foot by criticizing it rather than trying to work together to get more support for it.
IV has successfully done lobby day this week. Many members from Trstate and Texas were in DC and lobbied for admin fixes as well. Some state chapter members even contributed to pay for the expenses of members that traveled to DC.
Our Lobbyists are also working on pushing the bills forward. We are privy to the details on all bills and will announce on the forum at a later date. It is time for members to help themselves by supporting the initiatives by IV and strengthen the organization.
We removed the link and the thread. Announcing the bills in advance did not have its desired effect and motivation in members to help themselves by supporting it.
We saw members discussing the issue to its death and shooting themselves in the foot by criticizing it rather than trying to work together to get more support for it.
IV has successfully done lobby day this week. Many members from Trstate and Texas were in DC and lobbied for admin fixes as well. Some state chapter members even contributed to pay for the expenses of members that traveled to DC.
Our Lobbyists are also working on pushing the bills forward. We are privy to the details on all bills and will announce on the forum at a later date. It is time for members to help themselves by supporting the initiatives by IV and strengthen the organization.
more...
javadeveloper
08-25 06:12 AM
Is it true that if we apply for candadian PR we can't apply for visitors visa to cananda.
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
Discussions are here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=738 . Good Luck
I want to apply for PR to canada and also would like to go for stamping to cananda sometime after 4-5 months.
Thanks in advance...
Discussions are here http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=738 . Good Luck
2010 wallpapers of love quotes.
sky7
07-26 10:09 AM
Dear all...
I need some advice here...
Here is my current status:
**LC filed: Sept 2002, EB2, RIR
**I140 EB2 is currently pending, Non-Concurrent (filed June 2006)
** On 7th yr H1B ext - expires March 2007
My questions are:
1) I am considering quiting the current employer and work for a new company. Can i still get H1B extension if the new company files a PERM immediately?
I actually asked the my lawyer the similar question, this was her response:
"There is a CIS memo that allows 7th year extensions even after LC is approved. The problem would be if your company revokes the LC after you leave the company. If they don't revoke you can use the LC and get a 7th year with the company, file your own LC thru the new company. If they revoke, and they may given the fact that they are paying for it, you could then be in trouble. The regs and memos do not cover this situation. My interpretation would be TROUBLE upon revocation"
Can I get a second/or more opinions on this?
2) When someone leaves a company in good terms, the employer doesn't normally go through the hassale to "revoke" his/her labor cert right? (good or bad assumption?). If they don't revoke my LC and I140, then the new company can transfer my H1B over and get an extension?
3)And I assume IF my I140 gets denied (or declassified to be EB3), i am still ok as long the new company has filed a PERM for me, correct?
4) Or would it be SAFER to wait for couple of months (assuming the Nebraska Center is fast!) to get my I140 approved. Then transfer my LC, I140, and H1B to the next company...and have them continue my GC process? And i read somewhere that I can keep my PD that way?
I need to know the possible risks b4 accepting another job offer. all helps are appreciated... :)
Thanks in advance for ur help
Sky
I need some advice here...
Here is my current status:
**LC filed: Sept 2002, EB2, RIR
**I140 EB2 is currently pending, Non-Concurrent (filed June 2006)
** On 7th yr H1B ext - expires March 2007
My questions are:
1) I am considering quiting the current employer and work for a new company. Can i still get H1B extension if the new company files a PERM immediately?
I actually asked the my lawyer the similar question, this was her response:
"There is a CIS memo that allows 7th year extensions even after LC is approved. The problem would be if your company revokes the LC after you leave the company. If they don't revoke you can use the LC and get a 7th year with the company, file your own LC thru the new company. If they revoke, and they may given the fact that they are paying for it, you could then be in trouble. The regs and memos do not cover this situation. My interpretation would be TROUBLE upon revocation"
Can I get a second/or more opinions on this?
2) When someone leaves a company in good terms, the employer doesn't normally go through the hassale to "revoke" his/her labor cert right? (good or bad assumption?). If they don't revoke my LC and I140, then the new company can transfer my H1B over and get an extension?
3)And I assume IF my I140 gets denied (or declassified to be EB3), i am still ok as long the new company has filed a PERM for me, correct?
4) Or would it be SAFER to wait for couple of months (assuming the Nebraska Center is fast!) to get my I140 approved. Then transfer my LC, I140, and H1B to the next company...and have them continue my GC process? And i read somewhere that I can keep my PD that way?
I need to know the possible risks b4 accepting another job offer. all helps are appreciated... :)
Thanks in advance for ur help
Sky
more...
ameryki
07-14 01:54 PM
my lawyer says... apply now.. dont know what will be situ in october.. it might go forward.. backward...my pd is 10/2003.
he says since my medicals are over.. all docs are ready ... so he says file and be part of lawsuit..
is this wise idea...if i say yes.. he will file by next week..
i already sent money for my wife...
my company is not covering my wife's expenses.
the lawyer is charing 600 for legal and 745 for filing...
are these
reasonable fees
What is the lawyer charging you for your wife's application for?? If I am not mistaken all they have to do is add your wife's information alongwith your filing stating you are married and show a copy of marriage certificate as proof. Am I right here people?
he says since my medicals are over.. all docs are ready ... so he says file and be part of lawsuit..
is this wise idea...if i say yes.. he will file by next week..
i already sent money for my wife...
my company is not covering my wife's expenses.
the lawyer is charing 600 for legal and 745 for filing...
are these
reasonable fees
What is the lawyer charging you for your wife's application for?? If I am not mistaken all they have to do is add your wife's information alongwith your filing stating you are married and show a copy of marriage certificate as proof. Am I right here people?
hair Images Of Love Quotes For
ncrtpMay2004
07-03 06:38 AM
Got appt notice (for 7th)
2 days later appt cancellation notice
5 days later got a new appt notice (for 22nd)
2 days later appt cancellation notice
5 days later got a new appt notice (for 22nd)
more...
ashshef
09-11 06:40 PM
There has been a understanding that the number of EB cases (EB2+EB3) with PD of 2005 is very less compared to previous years (close to 8000 i believe). If thats the case and assume 2004 cases are cleared why didnt the VB make more advance movements?
I could be off by a few hundred, but I believe the per country quota caps EB2-I to about 2600. Keeping in mind that the least number of cases was likely in the period of Apr-Aug, due to the new process and uncertainity around Perm, that would still mean a lot of cases in the first quarter and last quarter of 2005. That would still mean slow progress through the first quarter of 2005 before we see significant movement.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no movement or negative movement in the next couple of months, before they hit the next quarter. I don't anticipate them getting too far before they are ready for the spillover at the end of FY2010.
I know of atleast 3 big companies which were not filing Perm till atleast Sep 2005. But they had a lot of filings in the last 2 weeks of March.
I could be off by a few hundred, but I believe the per country quota caps EB2-I to about 2600. Keeping in mind that the least number of cases was likely in the period of Apr-Aug, due to the new process and uncertainity around Perm, that would still mean a lot of cases in the first quarter and last quarter of 2005. That would still mean slow progress through the first quarter of 2005 before we see significant movement.
I wouldn't be surprised if there is no movement or negative movement in the next couple of months, before they hit the next quarter. I don't anticipate them getting too far before they are ready for the spillover at the end of FY2010.
I know of atleast 3 big companies which were not filing Perm till atleast Sep 2005. But they had a lot of filings in the last 2 weeks of March.
hot funny love quotes and sayings
prom2
11-26 10:30 AM
I saw in four Jun filers approvals at TSC dated 11/24.
Good luck
Good luck
more...
house Best Collection of Love Quotes
InTheMoment
09-10 03:38 PM
I sooo hear you ...especially the "shitty town in northern mass Lawrence"...and Infopass in that town. How did you bear this obnoxious combination man :p? If they can't give any more info why is the use of our taxes going to pay his (Infopass "IO") salary.
I guess there were no dates in the Boston office I guess... they are usually a bit more helpful.
I guess there were no dates in the Boston office I guess... they are usually a bit more helpful.
tattoo Love Quotes 1
santb1975
07-17 05:57 PM
I thought contribution to IV would be a better Idea than flowers, sweets etc. A thankyou card in additon to contribution is even better :-)
more...
pictures Screenshots Love Quotes Pro:
kubmilegaGC
09-11 02:49 PM
This Poll is for EB2 applicant whose priority Date is current but are waiting for approval.
Last Option Sept 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date ...Should be read as Oct 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date.
I
Thanks for starting this..."waiting" guys please vote!
Last Option Sept 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date ...Should be read as Oct 2004 - Jan 2005 Priority Date.
I
Thanks for starting this..."waiting" guys please vote!
dresses pics of love quotes. love
anemmani
01-04 10:11 AM
H1B is considered a dual intent visa and spouses of H1B beneficiaries have a difficulty proving non-immigrant intent that is required for F1. If the primary applicant has I-140 approved, it is even more difficult. As a result, my wife did not pursue the F1 option. Instead, she is enrolled in college as a H4 dependent. H4 dependents under certain circumstances are eligible for instate tuition. However, they are not eligible for teaching & research assistantships. They are also not eligible to OPT (because it is a form of employment.)
Nag
Nag
more...
makeup direct the course of love,
desiin_va
01-14 10:17 PM
To port PD from Eb3 to EB2, He does not require to qulify for EB2 before Nov 2001, He is eligible if he is qualified at time of filing EB2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
Folks redhagd's statement is correct, i checked with Atorney Sheela Murhty on Friday. To port from EB3 to EB2, you must be eligible for EB2 at the time of filing Labor in Eb2.
girlfriend quote of love - Picture for Me
jayram123
07-18 07:34 AM
DIGG THIS PLEASE:
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
Dugg!:)
http://digg.com/politics/Government_Does_U_Turn_on_Green_Cards
Dugg!:)
hairstyles hair sweet love quotes
ruby
08-16 05:24 PM
My I485 was filled with EB3/PD Sep 2002. That time I had EB2/PD-Sep-2004 approved too but my layers said that we should file with “EB3/PD Sep 2002” and when I asked them to combine my EB2 with “EB3/ PD Sep 2002” they said USCIS will reject it.,
Now as EB3 is unavailable, is it possible to use my EB2 approved I-140 with already filled I-485 ( which was filled with EB3/PD-Sep-2002) so that I can retain my EB3/PD-sep 2003 but change the preference category to EB2.
Now as EB3 is unavailable, is it possible to use my EB2 approved I-140 with already filled I-485 ( which was filled with EB3/PD-Sep-2002) so that I can retain my EB3/PD-sep 2003 but change the preference category to EB2.
eb3retro
10-24 03:47 PM
Once H-1B extension is received, one gets all the luxuries like any other H-1B. You can change jobs any day you want. Having that said, there are few things you have to re-do. Get the H-1B stamped if you change jobs. You have to re-start the GC process from scratch, yet you get to keep the PD and at the same time can switch to any EB catagory.
Before LC PERM process started, people didn't change jobs as LC could take any where from 2 to 4 years and re-starting the GC process was just no brainer. Now, as it takes 45days or less (theoraticaly) people easily change jobs and get H-1 transferred as well as get new GC process started and get LC in 45 days and then I-140 approved (with premium processing) in another 2 weeks.
So you once you change jobs you can get to the same stage where you are in two months if you start GC process right-away.
For tips to the other readers.
Some employers has company policy where they support the H-1 transfer (financially also) and then one has to wait for 1 or 2 years before they initiate GC process. The mostly the excuse is "Budget is fixed for a year".
One can propose a solution to this. Ask them, "What if I pay for the charges incurred for GC process if they agree to initiate right away and when s/he finishes one year of employment, reimburse the charges"
This has worked in many cases as doing such bothe employer and employee gets best of both worlds.
Great advice, I sincerely thank you for your time.
Before LC PERM process started, people didn't change jobs as LC could take any where from 2 to 4 years and re-starting the GC process was just no brainer. Now, as it takes 45days or less (theoraticaly) people easily change jobs and get H-1 transferred as well as get new GC process started and get LC in 45 days and then I-140 approved (with premium processing) in another 2 weeks.
So you once you change jobs you can get to the same stage where you are in two months if you start GC process right-away.
For tips to the other readers.
Some employers has company policy where they support the H-1 transfer (financially also) and then one has to wait for 1 or 2 years before they initiate GC process. The mostly the excuse is "Budget is fixed for a year".
One can propose a solution to this. Ask them, "What if I pay for the charges incurred for GC process if they agree to initiate right away and when s/he finishes one year of employment, reimburse the charges"
This has worked in many cases as doing such bothe employer and employee gets best of both worlds.
Great advice, I sincerely thank you for your time.
kaisersose
10-15 03:04 PM
If you have two jobs on hand, and your sponsoring employer keeps the offer for the future job open, then you can simply use your EAD for both jobs. What would you need the H1B for unless you have reasons to believe the I-485 will be denied?
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
A top attorney's fee for sending an AC21 letter to the USCIS is $3000. I assume all competent lawyers would be priced similarly.
But he also adds it is not necessary to use his services for Ac21, if the case is simple and straightforward. If you feel there are some twists or ambiguities in your case, then it is best to pony up the dough and have a lawyer send the letter instead of you.
If you wish to change employers, i.e. no longer take up the job with the employer who did your labor cert, then wait for 180 days after the receipt date of your I-485, find a " same or similar" job and use AC21 portability. - The AC21 law is kind of complex, most use the services of a (competent) lawyer.
A top attorney's fee for sending an AC21 letter to the USCIS is $3000. I assume all competent lawyers would be priced similarly.
But he also adds it is not necessary to use his services for Ac21, if the case is simple and straightforward. If you feel there are some twists or ambiguities in your case, then it is best to pony up the dough and have a lawyer send the letter instead of you.
No comments:
Post a Comment